Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

A sphere with a 40,000 km circumference has an area of
50,929,581,789,406,507 square decimeters. A decimeter is 1/10th meter
- roughly 4 inches in length.

http://www.ee.washington.edu/consele.../hdtv/95x5.htm

HDTV standards are 1080 x 1920 pixels updated 60x per second - that's
124.4 million pixels per second. At 6 km/sec flyover speed the
spacecraft moves 100 meters, or 1,000 decimeters, per frame. Which
might be convenient. A single HDTV sensor, at 1 decimeter resolution
would 'paint' a frame 108 meters by 192 meters on the ground. Every
second each sensor would pick up to decimeter resolution an area 192
meters by 6 kilometers. 10 HDTV cameras per satellite stacked side by
side would pick up to decimeter resolution would cover a swath 1.92 km
wide by 6 kilometers long every second. In s833 econds the 1.92 mile
wide swath would be 5,000 kilometers long. Eight satellites in the
same orbit following one another would image a 1.92 km wide strip every
833 seconds (13.89 minutes)

The Earth rotates 385.8 kilometers at the equator every 833 seconds.
And the eight satellites picked up a strip only 1.92 kilometers wide
with its 10 HDTV cameras. That's only 1/200th the total width. And
its less than 1/20,000th the circumference of the Earth. If we had a
string of 2,010 HDTV cameras in a string of lenses we cpi;d cover the
entire 385.8 km wide strip. This lens array needn't be too big. The
Rayleigh limit means your lenses ahve to be around 6 cm across, at an
altitude where you move over the ground at 6 km/sec. A planar array of
appropriately shaped lenses could provide the needed resolution and be
only 3 meters x 3 meters -10 ft by 10 ft - to use 2,010 HDTV CCDs to
image a region 385.8 kilometers across and 108 meters tall - to a
decimeter resolution per frame. The lenses aren't in a string, they're
in an array, with each strip in the array pointing a little to the left
or right of the previous strip. Fresnel lenses would be very
lightweight despite their area.

Thus, eight satellites in a polar orbit would provide continuous
coverage of the Earth to a decimeter resolution, and complete a scan of
the entire Earth to this resolution every 12 hours.

A collection of 192 satellites in 24 polar orbital planes, would
provide half-hour updates of the surface to this resolution.

The 192 satellites would also provide a two-way wireless
telecommunications capability to the surface via phased array microwave
antennae capable of painting a large number of stationary cells on the
Earth's surface below.

The satellites too would have a 50 Terabit/second open optical telecom
capability using a multi-spectral laser system with a low power
telescop (like a questar) Six questar type telescopes with 2 axis
pointing capabilities would be capable of connecting with the nearest
neighbor - the one ahead in the ring, the one behind in the ring, and
with two nearest neighbors on adjacent rings.

Within each satellite is an image storage and retrieval facility, along
with a massive router capable of communicating with nearest neighbor
sats. GPS data is used along with a cell map of the Earth's surface,
to maintain a fixed doppler corrected cell via microwave from the
moving collections of satellites overhead using their phased array
capabilities.

Thus 192 satellites could simultaneously provide global wireless
telecom capabilities along with a live picture of Earth - akin to
Google Earth - to 4 inch resolution - updated every half hour. Imagery
could be stored on board the satellite network, and combined to create
a best available image, so clouds for example could be eliminated by
recognizing them and subtracting them from images that are then
combined to produce cloud free images.

Also, the phased array telecom system could work in side scanning radar
mode - providing a high resolution microwave image of Earth as well,
data which could be added to the other data streams available to the
network. This could provide ranging data that is converted to
elevation data. Changes in elevation could be mapped this way, which
might be interesting.

And, the phased array antennae system could provide timed signals for
an alternative to the naval GPS system - and likely be superior due to
their greater number, lower altitude and superior signal timing.

192 satellites provide global coverage to decimeter resolution every
half hour, provide broadband wireless telecommunications throughout the
world.

Osmium, Platinum, and Iridium have isotopes with atomic weights of 192
- there is no naturally occuring element with an atomic NUMBER of 192.
The original Iridium system was to have 77 satellites. Maybe this
revised Iridium system could have the same name since the atomic weight
of an isotope of Iridium has the same value as the number of satellites
proposed here! lol.

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:
:: "jonathan" wrote in message
:: . ..
:: Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
:: his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
:: Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
:
:: It's about time.
:
:: I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
:
:: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
:: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
:
:Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
:Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.

No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:
:But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...

There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.

But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Eric Chomko wrote:

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "jonathan" wrote in message
: ...
: But the National Guard is just to
: put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
: Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.

: It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then it
: should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
: Federalized Minutemen.

: And it's a bit much to take from this President. As since day one
: since taking office he's let it be known he wants as many
: immigrants as possible. Creating a huge surge in illegal
: immigration since he took office to help keep wages low
: and big business happy.

: It doesn't take immigration for that. There's no reason why Americans should
: legally be able to decide for themselves to work for less than minimum wage,
: but the government has decided we are too stupid to decide for ourselves
: what our time is worth.

Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
into Mexico, by paying people too little.

But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...




http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions


Many of my friends will consider this view heretical. But it is based on
stark reality. Some progressive union leaders, facing this economic
reality, have come to the same conclusion. Others are holding fast.
Their behavior is partially a function of internal politics — and sheer
habit. Not unlike members of Congress, union leaders are in the business
of asking for more. That's what their mentors and predecessors and
heroes did. It's very difficult to turn around and say that "more" is
not always possible.

It can be galling to hear companies argue that they have to cut wages
and benefits for hourly workers — even as they reward top executives
with millions of dollars in stock options. The chief executive of
Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the company's average worker
takes home only about $10 an hour. But let's assume that the chief
executive got 27 cents instead of $27 million, and that Wal-Mart
distributed the savings to its hourly workers. They would each receive a
bonus of less than $20. It's not executive pay that has created this new
world.
-----

Those darned neo-cons like McGovern, tsk, tsk...

--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

On Tue, 23 May 2006 08:53:35 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
(Eric Chomko) wrote:
:Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
:Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.

No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.

And we'd be figuring out ways to conserve, which would actually help
decrease demand in the long run. As things stand today, $3 a gallon is
getting close to the point where the majority of people care about gas
mileage, but not close enough to seriously decrease demand.

Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand. Six bucks a gallon
would have the economy seriously in the tank.

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:
:: "jonathan" wrote in message
:: . ..
:: Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page
:: with his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
:: Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
:
:: It's about time.
:
:: I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next
:: election?
:
:: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the
:: voters were intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
:
:Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done
:better. Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.

No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.

Assuming Kerry reverses Mean Ol' Dubya and gets the Senate to ratify Kyoto,
that's probably close, judging from the price of gas in European countries
where Kyoto has been ratified and "carbon taxes" have been imposed to meet
the emissions targets.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:22:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

:Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand.

But only if it lasts for a relatively long time. Decreased demand due
to gas mileage tends to be a very laggy phenomenon, since people don't
immediately throw away their cars and rush out to buy new ones.

:Six bucks a gallon
:would have the economy seriously in the tank.

Why do you think that? Prices in Britain are currently over $7/gallon
and they don't seem to be "seriously in the tank".

Because they're long used to it, and have much more fuel-efficient
vehicles. They're past the lag that you note above. And much of
Europe's economy is in fact in the tank (though not just because of
high fuel prices).

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:22:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
:McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:such a way as to indicate that:
:
::Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand.
:
:But only if it lasts for a relatively long time. Decreased demand due
:to gas mileage tends to be a very laggy phenomenon, since people don't
:immediately throw away their cars and rush out to buy new ones.
:
::Six bucks a gallon
::would have the economy seriously in the tank.
:
:Why do you think that? Prices in Britain are currently over $7/gallon
:and they don't seem to be "seriously in the tank".
:
:Because they're long used to it, and have much more fuel-efficient
:vehicles. They're past the lag that you note above.

And that's why high gasoline prices might actually encourage an
economic boomlet in the US. Folks are going to want to replace those
big cars and SOMEBODY has to make the new ones.

:And much of
:Europe's economy is in fact in the tank (though not just because of
:high fuel prices).

Which countries are in trouble now that weren't in trouble before oil
prices spiked?

Saying "not just because" is over emphasizing the case. High fuel
prices have very little to do with various European economic woes.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:43:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

::Six bucks a gallon
::would have the economy seriously in the tank.
:
:Why do you think that? Prices in Britain are currently over $7/gallon
:and they don't seem to be "seriously in the tank".
:
:Because they're long used to it, and have much more fuel-efficient
:vehicles. They're past the lag that you note above.

And that's why high gasoline prices might actually encourage an
economic boomlet in the US.

Over the longer term, perhaps. In the short term, a recession
(probably an inflationary one due to high energy costs) would almost
be guaranteed.

:And much of
:Europe's economy is in fact in the tank (though not just because of
:high fuel prices).

Which countries are in trouble now that weren't in trouble before oil
prices spiked?

None, but I was referring to their perennially high fuel prices, not
ones resulting from the recent oil spike.

Saying "not just because" is over emphasizing the case. High fuel
prices have very little to do with various European economic woes.

They're a contributor, though probably not a major one.

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
: :
: :: "jonathan" wrote in message
: :: . ..
: :: Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
: :: his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
: :: Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
: :
: :: It's about time.
: :
: :: I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
: :
: :: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
: :: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
: :
: :Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
: :Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.

: No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.

We'd be using the overly large reserve that W won't touch due to the fact
that he's owned by Big Oil. Kerry isn't and would use the reserve to
offset the high profit margins the gas companies are now enjoying.

Even the smart Republicans realize Bush isn't great. Too bad you're
blinded by party.

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn